[Puck]

Tavvar, on 08 May 2020 - 01:29 PM, said:

Hmm, that became an essay. I have a History/Poli Sci degree and was bored during a meeting....

Well, I enjoyed reading it, so thanks for all the information!

[QuickTidal]

Tavvar, on 08 May 2020 - 01:29 PM, said:

Someone noted it above, but one on the biggest problems in US elections is that how elections are run is not in the Constitution, so its left to the states. So we have 50 different types of elections, all with unique rules based on who the government wants to vote. There are a lot of tools that the governing party can do to change who votes (assigning pooling places, voter ID, who is on voter rolls, time polls are open, early voting, gerrymandering, etc). One of the worst cases recently is the 2018 Georgia governor's race: the Republican candidate was the Secretary of State who controls elections and he purged the voter rolls prior to the election, and I believe he cleared off more people than the final margin that he won by over Stacy Abrahms. Allowing the guy in charge of running elections run for office is insane.

This state-by-state system leads to a whole mess of elections. Some states have long voting hours, some are short. Some have lots of early and weekend voting, others don't. Some require voter ID, some don't, all allow different types of ID. On the bright side, Republicans can't suppress all votes nationally, but with the Electoral College and Senate, they don't need to. Gerrymandering is the worst way to make changes because it allows politicians to pick their voters. For example, last year I lived in Ohio, which is about 55/45 Republican/Democrat, but the state legislature is over 2/3 Republican. Both parties have and do gerrymander, but it got worse in 2010 when the Tea Party Wave swept Republicans into power across the country. They then used computers to very carefully draw districts lines to try and guarantee a majority (example: my district in Columbus, OH included my neighborhood in the Western part of the city and a huge swath of rural land to the South- so they took the Democratic voters in my area, and stuck them in a Republican district. Most of the Columbus districts are like this, huge rural districts that take a small piece of the city to dilute Democratic votes.

@Garak- Yes, the Electoral College determines the Presidential Election. It was developed by the Founders to put distance between the People and the election of the President. People were supposed to vote for an Elector (smart, well-respected guy in town) to vote for them. The Founders were trying to avoid this exact situation because they did not trust the population at large to make good decisions. But it's never really worked as intended. Now it breaks the election into a race in 12 states, while Republicans in California and New York, and Democrats in Texas have no say in who becomes President.

Hmm, that became an essay. I have a History/Poli Sci degree and was bored during a meeting....

The United States was good on paper....but when it comes to executing things as a country, they SUCK and at least some of that really does come from individual States acting like little mini-countries. You're either UNITED or you're not...you can't be both clearly because it results in the most divided country.

[Mentalist]

QuickTidal, on 08 May 2020 - 04:14 PM, said:

Tavvar, on 08 May 2020 - 01:29 PM, said:

Someone noted it above, but one on the biggest problems in US elections is that how elections are run is not in the Constitution, so its left to the states. So we have 50 different types of elections, all with unique rules based on who the government wants to vote. There are a lot of tools that the governing party can do to change who votes (assigning pooling places, voter ID, who is on voter rolls, time polls are open, early voting, gerrymandering, etc). One of the worst cases recently is the 2018 Georgia governor's race: the Republican candidate was the Secretary of State who controls elections and he purged the voter rolls prior to the election, and I believe he cleared off more people than the final margin that he won by over Stacy Abrahms. Allowing the guy in charge of running elections run for office is insane.

This state-by-state system leads to a whole mess of elections. Some states have long voting hours, some are short. Some have lots of early and weekend voting, others don't. Some require voter ID, some don't, all allow different types of ID. On the bright side, Republicans can't suppress all votes nationally, but with the Electoral College and Senate, they don't need to. Gerrymandering is the worst way to make changes because it allows politicians to pick their voters. For example, last year I lived in Ohio, which is about 55/45 Republican/Democrat, but the state legislature is over 2/3 Republican. Both parties have and do gerrymander, but it got worse in 2010 when the Tea Party Wave swept Republicans into power across the country. They then used computers to very carefully draw districts lines to try and guarantee a majority (example: my district in Columbus, OH included my neighborhood in the Western part of the city and a huge swath of rural land to the South- so they took the Democratic voters in my area, and stuck them in a Republican district. Most of the Columbus districts are like this, huge rural districts that take a small piece of the city to dilute Democratic votes.

@Garak- Yes, the Electoral College determines the Presidential Election. It was developed by the Founders to put distance between the People and the election of the President. People were supposed to vote for an Elector (smart, well-respected guy in town) to vote for them. The Founders were trying to avoid this exact situation because they did not trust the population at large to make good decisions. But it's never really worked as intended. Now it breaks the election into a race in 12 states, while Republicans in California and New York, and Democrats in Texas have no say in who becomes President.

Hmm, that became an essay. I have a History/Poli Sci degree and was bored during a meeting....

The United States was good on paper....but when it comes to executing things as a country, they SUCK and at least some of that really does come from individual States acting like little mini-countries. You're either UNITED or you're not...you can't be both clearly because it results in the most divided country.

I mean, Switzerland is a confederatin, and they made it work.... it's not impossible.

[QuickTidal]

Mentalist, on 08 May 2020 - 06:33 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 08 May 2020 - 04:14 PM, said:

Tavvar, on 08 May 2020 - 01:29 PM, said:

Someone noted it above, but one on the biggest problems in US elections is that how elections are run is not in the Constitution, so its left to the states. So we have 50 different types of elections, all with unique rules based on who the government wants to vote. There are a lot of tools that the governing party can do to change who votes (assigning pooling places, voter ID, who is on voter rolls, time polls are open, early voting, gerrymandering, etc). One of the worst cases recently is the 2018 Georgia governor's race: the Republican candidate was the Secretary of State who controls elections and he purged the voter rolls prior to the election, and I believe he cleared off more people than the final margin that he won by over Stacy Abrahms. Allowing the guy in charge of running elections run for office is insane.

This state-by-state system leads to a whole mess of elections. Some states have long voting hours, some are short. Some have lots of early and weekend voting, others don't. Some require voter ID, some don't, all allow different types of ID. On the bright side, Republicans can't suppress all votes nationally, but with the Electoral College and Senate, they don't need to. Gerrymandering is the worst way to make changes because it allows politicians to pick their voters. For example, last year I lived in Ohio, which is about 55/45 Republican/Democrat, but the state legislature is over 2/3 Republican. Both parties have and do gerrymander, but it got worse in 2010 when the Tea Party Wave swept Republicans into power across the country. They then used computers to very carefully draw districts lines to try and guarantee a majority (example: my district in Columbus, OH included my neighborhood in the Western part of the city and a huge swath of rural land to the South- so they took the Democratic voters in my area, and stuck them in a Republican district. Most of the Columbus districts are like this, huge rural districts that take a small piece of the city to dilute Democratic votes.

@Garak- Yes, the Electoral College determines the Presidential Election. It was developed by the Founders to put distance between the People and the election of the President. People were supposed to vote for an Elector (smart, well-respected guy in town) to vote for them. The Founders were trying to avoid this exact situation because they did not trust the population at large to make good decisions. But it's never really worked as intended. Now it breaks the election into a race in 12 states, while Republicans in California and New York, and Democrats in Texas have no say in who becomes President.

Hmm, that became an essay. I have a History/Poli Sci degree and was bored during a meeting....

The United States was good on paper....but when it comes to executing things as a country, they SUCK and at least some of that really does come from individual States acting like little mini-countries. You're either UNITED or you're not...you can't be both clearly because it results in the most divided country.

I mean, Switzerland is a confederatin, and they made it work.... it's not impossible.

Indeed, but Switzerland is likely the exception to the rule.

Americans are currently protesting their right to go out and not only possibly die, but that they should be able to threaten others with death too....because Freedom...the whole country is built around chest-thumping, flag waving "freedom"...until it inconveniences them...then they have no trouble threatening everyone else.

What blows my mind is that late stage capitalism has literally lead to a whole swathe of people super struggling to last out the pandemic because they don't have savings (and probably never did)....but and in a lot of cases voted for there very fat cats who KEEP them down under late stage capitalism...I saw a woman on tiktok ranting about how she's poor and can't make ends meet during this lockdown, so they need to "OPEN UP!" according to her....and then I learned she's an R voter...and I'm like, bitch you VOTED for the people doing this to you...it's not the lockdown, its the billionaires buying into politics and keeping you poor.

[Cause]

“But I learned a lot by watching Richard Nixon. Of course, there was one difference -- one big difference. Number one, he may have been guilty, and number two, he had tapes all over the place.“- Trump

This line is amazing. Does it come across like someone boasting he learned to hide the evidence?

[Mentalist]

QuickTidal, on 08 May 2020 - 07:26 PM, said:

Mentalist, on 08 May 2020 - 06:33 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 08 May 2020 - 04:14 PM, said:

Tavvar, on 08 May 2020 - 01:29 PM, said:

Someone noted it above, but one on the biggest problems in US elections is that how elections are run is not in the Constitution, so its left to the states. So we have 50 different types of elections, all with unique rules based on who the government wants to vote. There are a lot of tools that the governing party can do to change who votes (assigning pooling places, voter ID, who is on voter rolls, time polls are open, early voting, gerrymandering, etc). One of the worst cases recently is the 2018 Georgia governor's race: the Republican candidate was the Secretary of State who controls elections and he purged the voter rolls prior to the election, and I believe he cleared off more people than the final margin that he won by over Stacy Abrahms. Allowing the guy in charge of running elections run for office is insane.

This state-by-state system leads to a whole mess of elections. Some states have long voting hours, some are short. Some have lots of early and weekend voting, others don't. Some require voter ID, some don't, all allow different types of ID. On the bright side, Republicans can't suppress all votes nationally, but with the Electoral College and Senate, they don't need to. Gerrymandering is the worst way to make changes because it allows politicians to pick their voters. For example, last year I lived in Ohio, which is about 55/45 Republican/Democrat, but the state legislature is over 2/3 Republican. Both parties have and do gerrymander, but it got worse in 2010 when the Tea Party Wave swept Republicans into power across the country. They then used computers to very carefully draw districts lines to try and guarantee a majority (example: my district in Columbus, OH included my neighborhood in the Western part of the city and a huge swath of rural land to the South- so they took the Democratic voters in my area, and stuck them in a Republican district. Most of the Columbus districts are like this, huge rural districts that take a small piece of the city to dilute Democratic votes.

@Garak- Yes, the Electoral College determines the Presidential Election. It was developed by the Founders to put distance between the People and the election of the President. People were supposed to vote for an Elector (smart, well-respected guy in town) to vote for them. The Founders were trying to avoid this exact situation because they did not trust the population at large to make good decisions. But it's never really worked as intended. Now it breaks the election into a race in 12 states, while Republicans in California and New York, and Democrats in Texas have no say in who becomes President.

Hmm, that became an essay. I have a History/Poli Sci degree and was bored during a meeting....

The United States was good on paper....but when it comes to executing things as a country, they SUCK and at least some of that really does come from individual States acting like little mini-countries. You're either UNITED or you're not...you can't be both clearly because it results in the most divided country.

I mean, Switzerland is a confederatin, and they made it work.... it's not impossible.

Indeed, but Switzerland is likely the exception to the rule.

Americans are currently protesting their right to go out and not only possibly die, but that they should be able to threaten others with death too....because Freedom...the whole country is built around chest-thumping, flag waving "freedom"...until it inconveniences them...then they have no trouble threatening everyone else.

What blows my mind is that late stage capitalism has literally lead to a whole swathe of people super struggling to last out the pandemic because they don't have savings (and probably never did)....but and in a lot of cases voted for there very fat cats who KEEP them down under late stage capitalism...I saw a woman on tiktok ranting about how she's poor and can't make ends meet during this lockdown, so they need to "OPEN UP!" according to her....and then I learned she's an R voter...and I'm like, bitch you VOTED for the people doing this to you...it's not the lockdown, its the billionaires buying into politics and keeping you poor.

The brilliance of selling people a system that works out best for everyone when everyone gets a chance to make 100% informed decisions... and then completely limiting access to the information necessary to make the best, informed choices.

But you are conflating several issues. The philosophy of "everyone for themselves" comes from the U.S. being a frontier state, where potentially limitless resources are were up for the taking, as long as you had the means for it.

That's not directly related to the political makeup that left residual power to the individual states, rather than the federal government.

Those people are equally opposed to central, or local authority, as long as it infringes on their freedoms. Not particularly germane to the point about how messed up and un-centralized their elections are.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

QuickTidal, on 08 May 2020 - 07:26 PM, said:

Mentalist, on 08 May 2020 - 06:33 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 08 May 2020 - 04:14 PM, said:

Tavvar, on 08 May 2020 - 01:29 PM, said:

Someone noted it above, but one on the biggest problems in US elections is that how elections are run is not in the Constitution, so its left to the states. So we have 50 different types of elections, all with unique rules based on who the government wants to vote. There are a lot of tools that the governing party can do to change who votes (assigning pooling places, voter ID, who is on voter rolls, time polls are open, early voting, gerrymandering, etc). One of the worst cases recently is the 2018 Georgia governor's race: the Republican candidate was the Secretary of State who controls elections and he purged the voter rolls prior to the election, and I believe he cleared off more people than the final margin that he won by over Stacy Abrahms. Allowing the guy in charge of running elections run for office is insane.

This state-by-state system leads to a whole mess of elections. Some states have long voting hours, some are short. Some have lots of early and weekend voting, others don't. Some require voter ID, some don't, all allow different types of ID. On the bright side, Republicans can't suppress all votes nationally, but with the Electoral College and Senate, they don't need to. Gerrymandering is the worst way to make changes because it allows politicians to pick their voters. For example, last year I lived in Ohio, which is about 55/45 Republican/Democrat, but the state legislature is over 2/3 Republican. Both parties have and do gerrymander, but it got worse in 2010 when the Tea Party Wave swept Republicans into power across the country. They then used computers to very carefully draw districts lines to try and guarantee a majority (example: my district in Columbus, OH included my neighborhood in the Western part of the city and a huge swath of rural land to the South- so they took the Democratic voters in my area, and stuck them in a Republican district. Most of the Columbus districts are like this, huge rural districts that take a small piece of the city to dilute Democratic votes.

@Garak- Yes, the Electoral College determines the Presidential Election. It was developed by the Founders to put distance between the People and the election of the President. People were supposed to vote for an Elector (smart, well-respected guy in town) to vote for them. The Founders were trying to avoid this exact situation because they did not trust the population at large to make good decisions. But it's never really worked as intended. Now it breaks the election into a race in 12 states, while Republicans in California and New York, and Democrats in Texas have no say in who becomes President.

Hmm, that became an essay. I have a History/Poli Sci degree and was bored during a meeting....

The United States was good on paper....but when it comes to executing things as a country, they SUCK and at least some of that really does come from individual States acting like little mini-countries. You're either UNITED or you're not...you can't be both clearly because it results in the most divided country.

I mean, Switzerland is a confederatin, and they made it work.... it's not impossible.

Indeed, but Switzerland is likely the exception to the rule.

Americans are currently protesting their right to go out and not only possibly die, but that they should be able to threaten others with death too....because Freedom...the whole country is built around chest-thumping, flag waving "freedom"...until it inconveniences them...then they have no trouble threatening everyone else.

What blows my mind is that late stage capitalism has literally lead to a whole swathe of people super struggling to last out the pandemic because they don't have savings (and probably never did)....but and in a lot of cases voted for there very fat cats who KEEP them down under late stage capitalism...I saw a woman on tiktok ranting about how she's poor and can't make ends meet during this lockdown, so they need to "OPEN UP!" according to her....and then I learned she's an R voter...and I'm like, bitch you VOTED for the people doing this to you...it's not the lockdown, its the billionaires buying into politics and keeping you poor.

'We're Still Living and Dying in the Slaveholders' Republic

The pandemic has brought the latest battle in the long American war over communal well-being.

[...] Slaveholders desired a state that wholly secured their individual freedom to enslave, not to mention their freedom to disenfranchise, to exploit, to impoverish, to demean, and to silence and kill the demeaned. The freedom to. The freedom to harm. Which is to say, in coronavirus terms, the freedom to infect.

Slaveholders disavowed a state that secured any form of communal freedom—the freedom of the community from slavery, from disenfranchisement, from exploitation, from poverty, from all the demeaning and silencing and killing. The freedom from. The freedom from harm. Which is to say, in coronavirus terms, the freedom from infection.

The slaveholder's freedom to seceded from Lincoln's "house divided against itself"—divided between the freedom to and from. Memminger was named the Confederate secretary of the Treasury. Americans went to war. Americans are still waging this same war, now over COVID-19. There is a war between those fighting to open America back up for the sake of individual freedom, and those fighting to keep America closed for the sake of community freedom. A civil war over the very meaning, the very utility of freedom.

[...] From the beginning of the American project, the powerful individual has been battling for his constitutional freedom to harm, and the vulnerable community has been battling for its constitutional freedom from harm. Both freedoms were inscribed into the U.S. Constitution, into the American psyche. The history of the United States, the history of Americans, is the history of reconciling the unreconcilable: individual freedom and community freedom. There is no way to reconcile the enduring psyche of the slaveholder with the enduring psyche of the enslaved.'

https://www.theatlan...s-trump/611083/

'The very idea that it doesn't matter what happens to the larger community, so long as the individual has unfettered freedom to do as he pleases, is not just a vestige of the slaveholder ethos. As Charlie Warzel points out this week, this has been the core animating theory behind the American gun rights movement: reduce the debate to an absolutist fight about freedom that eventually narcotizes an entire population into believing that the cost of true liberty is tens of thousands of avoidable gun deaths each year. Any effort to regulate anything within the vast space between "assault weapons for everyone on demand" and "reasonable gun safety" is cast as a dire step toward tyranny. As Warzel puts it, this leads to another version of freedom to, in this case, the freedom to either do mass harm or the freedom to insist that nothing be done about it:

This idea of freedom is also an excuse to serve one's self before others and a shield to hide from responsibility. In the gun rights fight, that freedom manifests in firearms falling into unstable hands. During a pandemic, that freedom manifests in rejections of masks, despite evidence to suggest they protect both the wearers and the people around them. It manifests in a rejection of public health by those who don't believe their actions affect others. In this narrow worldview, freedom has a price, in the form of an "acceptable" number of human lives lost. It's a price that will be calculated and then set by a select few. The rest of us merely pay it.

We now find ourselves on the precipice of a moment in which Americans must decide whether the price they are willing to pay for the "freedom" of armed protesters, those determined to block hospitals, and pundits who want to visit the zoo, is their own health and safety. Polls show that the majority of Americans are still deeply devoted to the proposition that their government can protect them from a deadly virus, and that they trust their governors and scientists and data far more than they trust the Mission Accomplished Industrial Complex that would have them valuing free-floating ideas about liberty over the health and indeed lives of essential workers, the elderly, and their own well-being, despite the president's recent insistence that this is what, all of us, as "warriors" must do. As Jamil Smith points out, this cultish view of "liberty" as demanding mass death in exchange for "liberty," as in "freedom to" is an assembly-line, AstroTurf version of liberty pushed by those who are already very free. "Their true goal, plutocracy, is the diametrical opposite of freedom," Smith writes. "It is a life lived to spite other lives, and often take advantage of them.

In the coming weeks, we will see some relatively small portion of Americans with great big megaphones and well-financed backers start to openly attack the selfsame health care workers who were celebrated as heroes just a few weeks ago. We will see attacks on people wearing masks and attacks on people lawfully asking others to wear masks. Some leaders will buckle under the pressure to rescind orders with claims that in choosing between liberty and death, they went with liberty. [...] A good rule of thumb for COVID-based discussions about "opening up" is that if someone is demanding it while threatening to hurt or kill you, you are probably not as "free" as they are, and that their project does nothing to increase freedom in America and everything to hoard a twisted idea of freedom for themselves.

When you hear someone demanding inchoate generalized "freedom," ask whether he cares at all that millions of workers who clean the zoos and buff the nails and intubate the grandmas are not free. These people are cannon fodder for your liberty.'

https://slate.com/ne...-hierarchy.html

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 09 May 2020 - 12:10 AM

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Mentalist, on 08 May 2020 - 11:57 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 08 May 2020 - 07:26 PM, said:

Mentalist, on 08 May 2020 - 06:33 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 08 May 2020 - 04:14 PM, said:

Tavvar, on 08 May 2020 - 01:29 PM, said:

Someone noted it above, but one on the biggest problems in US elections is that how elections are run is not in the Constitution, so its left to the states. So we have 50 different types of elections, all with unique rules based on who the government wants to vote. There are a lot of tools that the governing party can do to change who votes (assigning pooling places, voter ID, who is on voter rolls, time polls are open, early voting, gerrymandering, etc). One of the worst cases recently is the 2018 Georgia governor's race: the Republican candidate was the Secretary of State who controls elections and he purged the voter rolls prior to the election, and I believe he cleared off more people than the final margin that he won by over Stacy Abrahms. Allowing the guy in charge of running elections run for office is insane.

This state-by-state system leads to a whole mess of elections. Some states have long voting hours, some are short. Some have lots of early and weekend voting, others don't. Some require voter ID, some don't, all allow different types of ID. On the bright side, Republicans can't suppress all votes nationally, but with the Electoral College and Senate, they don't need to. Gerrymandering is the worst way to make changes because it allows politicians to pick their voters. For example, last year I lived in Ohio, which is about 55/45 Republican/Democrat, but the state legislature is over 2/3 Republican. Both parties have and do gerrymander, but it got worse in 2010 when the Tea Party Wave swept Republicans into power across the country. They then used computers to very carefully draw districts lines to try and guarantee a majority (example: my district in Columbus, OH included my neighborhood in the Western part of the city and a huge swath of rural land to the South- so they took the Democratic voters in my area, and stuck them in a Republican district. Most of the Columbus districts are like this, huge rural districts that take a small piece of the city to dilute Democratic votes.

@Garak- Yes, the Electoral College determines the Presidential Election. It was developed by the Founders to put distance between the People and the election of the President. People were supposed to vote for an Elector (smart, well-respected guy in town) to vote for them. The Founders were trying to avoid this exact situation because they did not trust the population at large to make good decisions. But it's never really worked as intended. Now it breaks the election into a race in 12 states, while Republicans in California and New York, and Democrats in Texas have no say in who becomes President.

Hmm, that became an essay. I have a History/Poli Sci degree and was bored during a meeting....

The United States was good on paper....but when it comes to executing things as a country, they SUCK and at least some of that really does come from individual States acting like little mini-countries. You're either UNITED or you're not...you can't be both clearly because it results in the most divided country.

I mean, Switzerland is a confederatin, and they made it work.... it's not impossible.

Indeed, but Switzerland is likely the exception to the rule.

Americans are currently protesting their right to go out and not only possibly die, but that they should be able to threaten others with death too....because Freedom...the whole country is built around chest-thumping, flag waving "freedom"...until it inconveniences them...then they have no trouble threatening everyone else.

What blows my mind is that late stage capitalism has literally lead to a whole swathe of people super struggling to last out the pandemic because they don't have savings (and probably never did)....but and in a lot of cases voted for there very fat cats who KEEP them down under late stage capitalism...I saw a woman on tiktok ranting about how she's poor and can't make ends meet during this lockdown, so they need to "OPEN UP!" according to her....and then I learned she's an R voter...and I'm like, bitch you VOTED for the people doing this to you...it's not the lockdown, its the billionaires buying into politics and keeping you poor.

The brilliance of selling people a system that works out best for everyone when everyone gets a chance to make 100% informed decisions... and then completely limiting access to the information necessary to make the best, informed choices.

But you are conflating several issues. The philosophy of "everyone for themselves" comes from the U.S. being a frontier state, where potentially limitless resources are were up for the taking, as long as you had the means for it.

That's not directly related to the political makeup that left residual power to the individual states, rather than the federal government.

Those people are equally opposed to central, or local authority, as long as it infringes on their freedoms. Not particularly germane to the point about how messed up and un-centralized their elections are.

Key word there being their---or what they perceive to be their freedoms. However, they generally support abortion bans; 67% of Republicans (2019 survey) 'say people who burn the flag should be stripped of citizenship';

https://today.yougov...ship-trump-poll

'Poll: 46 Percent of Mississippi GOP Want to Ban Interracial Marriage' (2011)

https://www.theatlan...blicans/349433/

'43% of Republicans say Trump should be able to shut down news outlets' (2018)

https://www.independ...l-a8481686.html

... and don't forget gay marriage, trans rights, etc.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 09 May 2020 - 12:28 AM

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Or the freedom to vote by mail, use drugs other than alcohol/caffeine/nicotine, voluntary prostitution, speak languages other than English in public, do ordinary things while black without being harassed or murdered by police....

'respondents were asked whether their selected group should be allowed to give speeches in the community, teach in public schools, run for public office and other liberties. Americans are not particularly tolerant of groups they dislike. [...] we found that a smaller proportion of white evangelicals would behave with tolerance toward atheists than the proportion of atheists who would behave with tolerance toward them. Thirteen percent of white evangelical Protestants selected atheists as their least-liked group. Of those, 32 percent are willing to extend three or more of these rights to atheists. In fact, when we looked at all religious groups, atheists and agnostics were the most likely to extend rights to the groups they least liked.

Conservative Christians believe their rights are in peril partly because that's what they're hearing, quite explicitly, from conservative media, religious elites, partisan commentators and some politicians, including the president. The survey evidence suggests another reason, too. Their fear comes from an inverted golden rule: Expect from others what you would do unto them. White evangelical Protestants express low levels of tolerance for atheists, which leads them to expect intolerance from atheists in return. That perception surely bolsters their support for Trump. They believe their freedom depends on keeping Trump and his party in power.'

https://www.washingt...eir-rights-why/

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 09 May 2020 - 01:57 AM

[HoosierDaddy]

The United States was at first NOT a federal union. It was a CONFEDERATION. As in the Articles of Confederation which governed the U.S.A. until the Second Constitutional Convention was called for because the Articles of Confederation SO limited the Federal Government as to make it pointless.

So, let us have a look at this as to how it reflects the GOAL of the U.S. political system. The states act as "mini-countries" because they are exactly that. They are sovereign over everything that the "Federal" (I hate to use that term but it is the common word used to describe the "national" portion of our political system) is not given the power to govern. Thus, slavery abolished in the north, dominant in the south ---> Civil War ---> 13th, 14th, 15th amendments saying the slavery is outlawed in all states by power granted to the national government via added amendment to the original powers granted, the 14th applying and adding the protections of the Bill of Rights nationally (1-9th amendments) to all states individually, and of course the 15th saying that the right of African Americans to vote shall not be denied or abridged (emphasis mine) due to race, color, or previous servitude. The 15th as it expressly applies to states (and would anyway via the 14th amendment, but it is unnecessary here) could be used to float a constitutional argument against some actions of the states, which are not explicitly denying people of color the right to vote, but do by impact, through the courts. But that is incremental and takes years to go through the legal system.

So, we have separation of powers within the "Federal" government itself, which then has separated powers to the sovereign "State" governments. The goal was to disperse as little power as necessary to the state AND federal government. To have each of those checking one another while their internal individual branches were checking each other. Thus, NOTHING is CHANGED simply. NOTHING is CHANGED easily.

So, you want to make a national day of elections a holiday? Cool! I am for that 100%. Want to make it extended period? Mail in vote? Tiered choices instead of first past the post? Cool! Let's do it! Now... let us get 2/3rds of both Senate and House Representatives to agree to one... or 2/3rds of the state assemblies call for a Constitutional Convention!?! (Last time we did that we went from the Articles of Confederation to this Constitution lol). Sound hard? Hell yes. We get that done? AWESOME!

Now only 3/4s of the states have to agree!

Anything remotely and I mean REMOTELY controversial will not in this day and age make it through that hurdle. Elections are sadly one of those things. One of the parties has a vested interest (which has been decently described here) in limiting turn-out in any way possible. It is bad for them to have large turnouts historically. Not always, but as a trend it hurts Republicans.


Thus, any true radical change right now would require a new constitutional convention (which I talked about in I think my last post in here concerning getting a reinterpretation/modeling of the 2nd Amendment) but that is a Pandora's Box that would be so extremely dangerous that few want it to happen (and in my sober judgment it isn't necessary quite yet, but negative possiblities outweigh the positive possibilities as of right now in my opinion).

So, for now we are stuck doing our best to vote as we can in incremental, evolutionary not revolutionary changes.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 09 May 2020 - 03:41 AM

[Macros]

I really think Balkanisation is the USs only hope

[HoosierDaddy]

Not going to happen. The ties that bind are far stronger than the discord. Look at our political "range"! Both Democrats and Republicans are fairly conservative on the overall spectrum. The outliers are fairly conservative for outliers! They are as liberal as most Western nations' conservative parties!

We are divisive united. Separated we'd be an absolute fucking mess. And I have far, far more in common with the conservatives I disagree with pretty overall politically than anyone else in the world. Change will come, but it will be slow. It is working the way it is supposed to. Two steps forward, three back, two forward, one back, two forward, one back: progress. Slowly but surely, progress. It is the way (for now).

[Macros]

Man, I really hope you're right and progress happens, but it seems since Obama the US is in an inexorable slide into oligarchy. Your senate and politics are more corrupt than Rome of old, you need the Vandals to come in and burn Washington to the ground. Maybe Canada will do it for you again

[HoosierDaddy]

Macros, on 09 May 2020 - 10:32 AM, said:

Man, I really hope you're right and progress happens, but it seems since Obama the US is in an inexorable slide into oligarchy. Your senate and politics are more corrupt than Rome of old, you need the Vandals to come in and burn Washington to the ground. Maybe Canada will do it for you again

It has happened and will continue to happen. But our system is designed for these things to be done very slowly, which is why I took the time to describe the goal of our legal and political processes. I know under the parliamentary system decisions and execution on issues can be made and done lightning quick. Thus, quick acting remedies/solutions can be implemented in response to situations far quicker than ours. That obviously has its pros and cons as well.

In exchange for that quick response ability, the U.S. political/legal system is far more conservative and slow developing. Quick is not always better. Rapid change can, would, and has led to very poor results here. The attempt to end slavery politically prompted (for the most part, there are other reasons but it is primary) the deadliest war in American history. The 18th amendment led directly to the 21st amendment repealing it because it was done too hastily! (Those are prohibition and ending prohibition).


This too shall pass, and we'll soldier on. I might really dislike the oligarchs and the people who abuse the vast, vast majority of Americans. I wish THEY were gone and unable to do what they do. But, I have nothing against the vast majority of Americans I disagree with politically in any major sense other than I simply disagree with them, but I don't really hold a grudge against them.


Balkanization would not work in the U.S.A. because we are FAR more united as a whole than we are divided because our very strength comes from the vast diversity of the people here, intertwined in communities across the U.S. No part of America could split off without massive internal ramifications among the populations. While the coasts are a little more liberal in general, the south a little more conservative in general, and the midwest just hanging out between the two seems to be divided, on a political compass we are separated by millimetres for most of the population versus centimetres to Europe and the rest of the world.

[Abyss]

Macros, on 09 May 2020 - 10:32 AM, said:

...you [ USA ] need the Vandals to come in and burn Washington to the ground. Maybe Canada will do it for you again

We'll give them til November.
After that... well.... sorry, eh.

[Cause]

Abyss, on 10 May 2020 - 05:08 AM, said:

Macros, on 09 May 2020 - 10:32 AM, said:

...you [ USA ] need the Vandals to come in and burn Washington to the ground. Maybe Canada will do it for you again

We'll give them til November.
After that... well.... sorry, eh.

“In 1812 You might have met our fresh-faced president and his weak-kneed aristocratic gentlemen friends,but you haven’t met America.”

“You haven’t met the heartland where the people will defend this nation with their bloody calloused bare hands. You haven’t met the steelworkers and the hard rock miners or the swamp folks in Cajun country who can wrestle a full-grown gator out of the water.”

“No, you’ve never met America, And you oughta pray you never do.”

[Gorefest]

Is that the slogan of the US tourist information board?

[Terez]

Cause, on 08 May 2020 - 11:32 PM, said:

"But I learned a lot by watching Richard Nixon. Of course, there was one difference -- one big difference. Number one, he may have been guilty, and number two, he had tapes all over the place."- Trump

This line is amazing. Does it come across like someone boasting he learned to hide the evidence?

Yes. And Bill Barr learned the same lessons from the Nixon era. Trump has been a "deny deny deny" guy his whole life but he probably learned everything he knows about the specifics of Watergate from Barr, who has had his monarchist fingers in the White House a few times before. Here's an article from 1991 that was cited on Wikipedia - I was just going to link his Wikipedia article, but this is better.

https://www.washingt...5-35f9619e0528/

WaPo said:

William Bradford Reynolds, who headed the Justice Department's civil rights division under President Ronald Reagan, said, "Bill is much more adamant and concerned about separation-of-powers issues than Thornburgh was."

"There's been a strain of strong commitment to executive power since the Reagan administration, but it's a question of how much of a good thing is too much?" said another former high-ranking Justice Department official, who spoke on the condition he not be named.

[...]

Barr's confirmation hearings provided a hint of his later advocacy for the powers of the executive branch. Barr testified that he "entertained doubts" about whether the post-Watergate independent counsel statute violated the Constitution by impinging on the president's power. But he said he accepted the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the statute.

As OLC chief, he provided legal reasoning used by the administration to justify the invasion of Panama and the arrest of Manuel Antonio Noriega. He also wrote an opinion that states the administration has the power to arrest terrorists overseas, even in violation of international law.

After he became deputy attorney general in May 1990, Barr advised Bush that he had the legal authority to wage war against Iraq without obtaining Congress's consent. At the same time, however, he encouraged the president to seek a congressional resolution of support, saying it would put Bush in a stronger position, according to "The Commanders," a book by Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward.

He was confirmed as HW's AG in 1991. Now he's back, and he has the wannabe dictator he has always dreamed of. He knows that, if he pushes the boundaries of presidential authority far enough, it will be very difficult to restore that balance. And Trump himself has no sense of restraint whatsoever.

They're boiling the frog slowly. One breach here, another breach there. Eventually they become samey and old-news.

[Cause]

Do I live in fantasy land? I realize fox and cnn and Bloomberg and who knows however many other news companies are competitors but Trump press conferences are a joke, he refuses to answer even basic questions, picks softballs, bullies reporters etc. surely it would not be hard for the pressure to present a more united front? Give one person their questions maybe and have them ask them all and follow up until he answers maybe?

[Terez]

I think everyone is scared that if they do that, he'll just stop holding press conferences or stop giving press credentials to anyone but Fox and OAN.